Niddah

A question was raised in the presence of Rabbi: What is the ruling where a woman aborted a sac full of flesh? 'I did not hear of such a law', he answered them. 'Thus', announced R. Ishmael son of R. Jose before him, 'said my father: If it was full of blood the woman is unclean as a menstruant, but if it was full of flesh she is unclean as a woman after childbirth'. The other said to him: Had you told us something new in the name of your father we would have listened to you; but now, since his first ruling  was given in accordance with the view of an individual, viz., in agreement with Symmachus who cited R. Meir,  his second ruling also  might be one given in accordance with the view of R. Joshua;  but the halachah is not in agreement with R. Joshua. For it was taught: If an abortion was a sac with no fashioned limbs, R. Joshua ruled: It  is regarded as a valid birth  but the Sages ruled, it is no valid birth. R. Simeon b. Lakish citing R. Oshaia stated: The dispute  refers only to a sac that was turbid  but if it was clear  all agree that it is no valid birth. R. Joshua b. Levi, however, stated: The dispute  refers to the case of a clear sac. The question was raised:  Do they differ only in the case of a clear sac but in that of a turbid one all agree that it is a valid birth or is it possible that they differ about the one as well as about the other? — This stands undecided.  An objection was raised: This exposition was made by R. Joshua b. Hananiah: And the Lord God made for Adam and for his wife garments of skins, and clothed them  teaches that the Holy One, blessed be He, makes no skin for man before  he is formed. Thus it is clearly proved that a valid birth  depends on the skin irrespective of whether the sac was turbid or clear. Now if you grant  that the dispute  refers to the case of a clear sac there is full justification for his  need for a Scriptural text;  but if you maintain  that the dispute refers only to a turbid sac,  what need was there for a Scriptural text seeing that the reason  is a matter of logic? Consequently it may be inferred that the dispute refers also to a clear sac.  This is conclusive. R. Nahman citing Rabbah b. Abbuha also  stated: They  differ only in regard to a turbid sac but as regards a clear one all agree that it is no valid birth. Raba raised an objection against R. Nahman: But they ruled: The token of a valid birth  in small cattle is a discharge from the womb,  in large cattle the placenta,  and in a woman the sac or placenta',  but, it follows, the abortion of a sac in cattle provides no exemption.  Now, if you grant that they  differ in the case of a clear sac, one can well see the reason why only a woman whose case Scripture specifically included,  was granted exemption in respect of a sac  while cattle whose case Scripture did not include no exemption was granted in respect of a sac, but if you maintain that the dispute concerns only a turbid sac consider! [The question of the validity of the birth being dependent] on a logical reason  what difference in this respect could there be between a woman and cattle?  — You think that R. Joshua was quite certain [of the nature of the sac],  but the fact is that R. Joshua was rather doubtful on the matter and, therefore, he followed a restrictive course in both cases.  [Only the question of the firstborn son] of  a woman, which is a mere monetary matter,  [did he rule that the abortion of a sac constitutes a valid birth,  because] in a case of doubt in monetary matters a lenient course  is followed.  On the question of the firstling of cattle, however, which involves a ritual prohibition of shearing  and of work  [he ruled the abortion of a sac to be an invalid birth,  because] in case of doubt in a ritual prohibition a restrictive course must be followed; and so also [on the question of the uncleanness] of a woman [the abortion of a sac is deemed to be a valid birth,  because] in a case of doubtful uncleanness  a restrictive course must be followed. But was he  in doubt?  Did he not, in fact, quote a Scriptural text?  — The ruling is only Rabbinical  and the Scriptural text is a mere prop. Said R. Hanina b. Shelemya to Rab: We have  the statements of  Rabbi,  of  R. Ishmael son of R. Jose,  of R. Oshaia  and of R. Joshua b. Levi;  with whose view does the Master agree? — I maintain, the other replied, that in neither case  need she take into consideration the possibility of a valid birth. Samuel, however, ruled: In either case  must she consider the possibility of a valid birth.  Samuel in this ruling follows his previously expressed view. For R. Dimi when he came  stated: Never at Nehardea  did they declare [one who aborted] a sac  to be clean  except in the case of a certain sac that was submitted to Samuel on which a hair that lay on one side could be seen through the other side when he said: If it were in fact an embryo it would not have been so transparent. BUT IF ITS LIMBS WERE FASHIONED etc. Our Rabbis taught: What is meant by a sac the limbs of which are fashioned? Abba Saul explained: A foetus which in its primary stage resembles a locust,  and its two eyes are like two drippings  of a fly. R. Hiyya taught: They are far removed from one another. Its two nostrils are like two drippings of a fly. R. Hiyya taught: They are near one to another. Its mouth is as narrow as a stretched hair,  its membrum  is of the size of a lentil  and in the case of a female [the organ] has the appearance of the longitudinal [slit]  of a barley grain; but it has no shaped hands or feet.  Of such a foetus there is this description in the post-Pentateuchal Scriptures:  Hast thou not poured me out as milk, and curdled me like cheese? Thou hast clothed me with skin and flesh and knit me together with bones and sinews. Thou hast granted me life and favor, and Thy providence hath preserved my spirit.  It  must not be examined in water because water is hard